AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONALISM VOLUME II: RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES Howard Gillman Mark A. Graber Keith E. Whittington. Supplementary Material

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONALISM VOLUME II: RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES Howard Gillman Mark A. Graber Keith E. Whittington. Supplementary Material"

Transcription

1 AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONALISM VOLUME II: RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES Howard Gillman Mark A. Graber Keith E. Whittington Supplementary Material Chapter 8: The New Deal/Great Society Era Foundations/Scope/Extraterritoriality Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957) (expanded) Clarice Covert murdered her husband, a sergeant in the Air Force, when he was stationed in the United Kingdom. Congressional law at the time authorized military trials for all persons who committed crimes on army bases overseas. Covert was tried by a military court, found guilty of murder, sentenced to life in prison, and shipped to the District of Columbia to serve her sentence. Upon entering the United States, she petitioned the local federal district court for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that her military trial violated her Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. The District Court granted the writ, and the government of the United States immediately appealed that decision to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court in June 11, 1956 rejected Covert s claims. Relying on Ross v. McIntyre (1891), 1 Justice Clark s majority opinion ruled that the Constitution does not require trial before an Article III court in a foreign country for offenses committed there by an American citizen and that Congress may establish legislative courts for this purpose. Justice Clark s opinion was published before Chief Justice Warren, Justice Douglas, and Justice Frankfurter finished writing their dissents. During the writing process, Justice Harlan was convinced to rehear the case. Upon reargument, he joined the majority, along with Justice Brennan, who had replaced Justice Minton. With the retirement of Justice Reed, a 5 4 majority to reject the habeas petition became a 6 2 majority in favor of Covert s claims. Justice Black s opinion concluded that American citizens tried by Americans in foreign countries were entitled to the full panoply of constitutional rights. Justice Harlan and Justice Frankfurter insisted only that a jury trial was warranted under the particular circumstances of Covert s case. Think about the status of In re Ross after Reid. Did Justice Black overrule the case or distinguish the case? Compare the majority opinion in Reid to the majority opinion in Johnson v. Eisentrager (1950). As of 1957, under what conditions would a judicial majority insist that a person accused of a crime overseas had constitutional rights? Under what conditions would a jury trial clearly be denied? Where were the gray areas? Notice also how the differences between Justice Black and Justice Harlan on the rights of Americans overseas mirror their differences over incorporation. Black insists that government officials cannot pick and choose among constitutional rights when conducting trials overseas. Harlan insists only that trials be fundamentally fair. Do incorporation and questions about the extraterritorial scope of the Constitution present similar issues? Might different rules apply for each? JUSTICE BLACK announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE DOUGLAS, and JUSTICE BRENNAN join. [W]e reject the idea that when the United States acts against citizens abroad it can do so free of the Bill of Rights. The United States is entirely a creature of the Constitution. Its power and authority have no other source. It can only act in accordance with all the limitations imposed by the Constitution. When the Government reaches out to punish a citizen who is abroad, the shield which the Bill of Rights 1 See American Constitutionalism, Volume II: Rights and Liberties, Chapter 7.

2 and other parts of the Constitution provide to protect his life and liberty should not be stripped away just because he happens to be in another land. The language of Art. III, 2 manifests that constitutional protections for the individual were designed to restrict the United States Government when it acts outside of this country, as well as here at home. After declaring that all criminal trials must be by jury, the section states that when a crime is not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed. If this language is permitted to have its obvious meaning, 2 is applicable to criminal trials outside of the States as a group without regard to where the offense is committed or the trial held. While it has been suggested that only those constitutional rights which are fundamental protect Americans abroad, we can find no warrant, in logic or otherwise, for picking and choosing among the remarkable collection of Thou shalt nots which were explicitly fastened on all departments and agencies of the Federal Government by the Constitution and its Amendments. Moreover, in view of our heritage and the history of the adoption of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, it seems peculiarly anomalous to say that trial before a civilian judge and by an independent jury picked from the common citizenry is not a fundamental right. The Ross v. McIntyre (1891) approach that the Constitution has no applicability abroad has long since been directly repudiated by numerous cases. That approach is obviously erroneous if the United States Government, which has no power except that granted by the Constitution, can and does try citizens for crimes committed abroad. Thus the Ross case rested, at least in substantial part, on a fundamental misconception and the most that can be said in support of the result reached there is that the consular court jurisdiction had a long history antedating the adoption of the Constitution. The Congress has recently buried the consular system of trying Americans. We are not willing to jeopardize the lives and liberties of Americans by disinterring it. At best, the Ross case should be left as a relic from a different era. The Insular Cases ( ) can be distinguished from the present cases in that they involved the power of Congress to provide rules and regulations to govern temporarily territories with wholly dissimilar traditions and institutions whereas here the basis for governmental power is American citizenship. None of these cases had anything to do with military trials and they cannot properly be used as vehicles to support an extension of military jurisdiction to civilians. Moreover, it is our judgment that neither the cases nor their reasoning should be given any further expansion. The concept that the Bill of Rights and other constitutional protections against arbitrary government are inoperative when they become inconvenient or when expediency dictates otherwise is a very dangerous doctrine and if allowed to flourish would destroy the benefit of a written Constitution and undermine the basis of our Government. If our foreign commitments become of such nature that the Government can no longer satisfactorily operate within the bounds laid down by the Constitution, that instrument can be amended by the method which it prescribes. But we have no authority, or inclination, to read exceptions into it which are not there. [T]he Founders had no intention to permit the trial of civilians in military courts, where they would be denied jury trials and other constitutional protections, merely by giving Congress the power to make rules which were necessary and proper for the regulation of the land and naval Forces. Such a latitudinarian interpretation of these clauses would be at war with the well-established purpose of the Founders to keep the military strictly within its proper sphere, subordinate to civil authority. The Constitution does not say that Congress can regulate the land and naval Forces and all other persons whose regulation might have some relationship to maintenance of the land and naval Forces. There is no indication that the Founders contemplated setting up a rival system of military courts to compete with civilian courts for jurisdiction over civilians who might have some contact or relationship with the armed forces. Courts-martial were not to have concurrent jurisdiction with courts of law over non-military America.

3 We should not break faith with this Nation s tradition of keeping military power subservient to civilian authority, a tradition which we believe is firmly embodied in the Constitution. The country has remained true to that faith for almost one hundred seventy years. Perhaps no group in the Nation has been truer than military men themselves. Unlike the soldiers of many other nations, they have been content to perform their military duties in defense of the Nation in every period of need and to perform those duties well without attempting to usurp power which is not theirs under our system of constitutional government. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, concurring in the result. The cases cannot be decided simply by saying that, since these women were not in uniform, they were not in the land and naval Forces. The Court s function in constitutional adjudications is not exhausted by a literal reading of words. It may be tiresome, but it is nonetheless vital, to keep our judicial minds fixed on the injunction that it is a constitution we are expounding. M Culloch v. Maryland (1819). The prosecution by court-martial for capital crimes committed by civilian dependents of members of the armed forces abroad is hardly to be deemed, under modern conditions, obviously appropriate to the effective exercise of the power to make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces when it is a question of deciding what power is granted under Article I, and therefore what restriction is made on Article III and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. I do not think that the proximity, physical and social, of these women to the land and naval Forces is, with due regard to all that has been put before us, so clearly demanded by the effective Government and Regulation of those forces as reasonably to demonstrate a justification for court-martial jurisdiction over capital offenses. The Government speaks of the great potential impact on military discipline of these accompanying civilian dependents. This cannot be denied, nor should its implications be minimized. But the notion that discipline over military personnel is to be furthered by subjecting their civilian dependents to the threat of capital punishment imposed by court-martial is too hostile to the reasons that underlie the procedural safeguards of the Bill of Rights for those safeguards to be displaced. It is true that military discipline might be affected seriously if civilian dependents could commit murders and other capital crimes with impunity. No one, however, challenges the availability to Congress of a power to provide for trial and punishment of these dependents for such crimes. The method of trial alone is in issue. I therefore conclude that, in capital cases, the exercise of court-martial jurisdiction over civilian dependents in time of peace cannot be justified by Article I, considered in connection with the specific protections of Article III and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. The Court s opinions in the territorial cases did not lay down a broad principle that the protective provisions of the Constitution do not apply outside the continental limits of the United States. This Court considered the particular situation in each newly acquired territory to determine whether the grant to Congress of power to govern Territory was restricted by a specific provision of the Constitution. The territorial cases, in the emphasis put by them on the necessity for considering the specific circumstances of each particular case, are thus relevant in that they provide an illustrative method for harmonizing constitutional provisions which appear, separately considered, to be conflicting. One observation should be made at the outset about the grounds for decision in Ross. Insofar as the opinion expressed a view that the Constitution is not operative outside the United States it expressed a notion that has long since evaporated. Governmental action abroad is performed under both the authority and the restrictions of the Constitution for example, proceedings before American military tribunals, whether in Great Britain or in the United States, are subject to the applicable restrictions of the Constitution.

4 The consular court jurisdiction was exercised in countries whose legal systems at the time were considered so inferior that justice could not be obtained in them by our citizens. The existence of these courts was based on long-established custom, and they were justified as the best possible means for securing justice for the few Americans present in those countries. The Ross case, therefore, arose out of, and rests on, very special, confined circumstances, and cannot be applied automatically to the present situation, involving hundreds of thousands of American citizens in countries with civilized systems of justice. If Congress had established consular courts or some other non-military procedure for trial that did not contain all the protections afforded by Article III and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments for the trial of civilian dependents of military personnel abroad, we would be forced to a detailed analysis of the situation of the civilian dependent population abroad in deciding whether the Ross case should be extended to cover such a case. It is not necessary to do this in the present cases in view of our decision that the form of trial here provided cannot constitutionally be justified. JUSTICE HARLAN, concurring in the result. I concur in the result, on the narrow ground that, where the offense is capital, Article 2(11) cannot constitutionally be applied to the trial of civilian dependents of members of the armed forces overseas in times of peace. I do not think the courts-martial of these army wives can be said to be an arbitrary extension of congressional power. First of all, the historical evidence presented by the Government convinces me that, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, military jurisdiction was not thought to be rigidly limited to uniformed personnel. I cannot say that the court-martial jurisdiction here involved has no rational connection with the stated power. The Government, it seems to me, has made a strong showing that the court-martial of civilian dependents abroad has a close connection to the proper and effective functioning of our overseas military contingents. Jurisdiction by courts-martial over all civilians accompanying the Army overseas is essential because of the manner in which U.S. Armed Forces personnel live in their overseas military communities. In this command, almost all personnel serving in or accompanying the U.S. Armed Forces live in or near separate, closely knit U.S. military communities which are basically under the control, administration and supervision of the local U.S. Commander, who is, in turn, responsive to the normal military chain of command. I do not think that it can be said that these safeguards of the Constitution are never operative without the United States, regardless of the particular circumstances. On the other hand, I cannot agree with the suggestion that every provision of the Constitution must always be deemed automatically applicable to American citizens in every part of the world. For Ross and the Insular Cases do stand for an important proposition, one which seems to me a wise and necessary gloss on our Constitution. The proposition is, of course, not that the Constitution does not apply overseas, but that there are provisions in the Constitution which do not necessarily apply in all circumstances in every foreign place.... On this basis, I cannot agree with the sweeping proposition that a full Article III trial, with indictment and trial by jury, is required in every case for the trial of a civilian dependent of a serviceman overseas. The Government, it seems to me, has made an impressive showing that, at least for the run-ofthe-mill offenses committed by dependents overseas, such a requirement would be impractical. So far as capital cases are concerned, I think they stand on quite a different footing than other offenses. In such cases, the law is especially sensitive to demands for that procedural fairness which inheres in a civilian trial where the judge and trier of fact are not responsive to the command of the convening authority. I do not concede that whatever process is due an offender faced with a fine or a prison sentence necessarily satisfies the requirements of the Constitution in a capital case. In fact, the Government itself has conceded that one grave offense, treason, presents a special case:

5 The gravity of this offense is such that we can well assume that, whatever difficulties may be involved in trial far from the scene of the offense, the trial should be in our courts. I see no reason for not applying the same principle to any case where a civilian dependent stands trial on pain of life itself. The number of such cases would appear to be so negligible that the practical problems of affording the defendant a civilian trial would not present insuperable problems. JUSTICE CLARK, with whom JUSTICE BURTON joins, dissenting. JUSTICE BURTON and I remain convinced that the former opinions of the Court are correct, and that they set forth valid constitutional doctrine under the long-recognized cases of this Court. Historically, the military has always exercised jurisdiction by court-martial over civilians accompanying armies in time of war. [I]t is reasonable to provide that the military commander who bears full responsibility for the care and safety of those civilians attached to his command should also have authority to regulate their conduct. Moreover, all members of an overseas contingent should receive equal treatment before the law. In their actual day-to-day living, they are a part of the same unique communities, and the same legal considerations should apply to all. There is no reason for according to one class a different treatment than is accorded to another. Another alternative the Congress might have adopted was the establishment of federal courts pursuant to Article III of the Constitution. These constitutional courts would have to sit in each of the 63 foreign countries where American troops are stationed at the present time. Aside from the fact that the Constitution has never been interpreted to compel such an undertaking, it would seem obvious that it would be manifestly impossible. The problem of the use of juries in common law countries alone suffices to illustrate this. Likewise, trial of offenders by an Article III court in this country, perhaps workable in some cases, is equally impracticable as a general solution to the problem. The hundreds of petty cases involving black-market operations, narcotics, immorality, and the like, could hardly be brought here for prosecution even if the Congress and the foreign nation involved authorized such a procedure. The only alternative remaining probably the alternative that the Congress will now be forced to choose is that Americans committing offenses on foreign soil be tried by the courts of the country in which the offense is committed. It is clear that trial before an American court-martial in which the fundamentals of due process are observed is preferable to leaving American servicemen and their dependents to the widely varying standards of justice in foreign courts throughout the world. Under these circumstances, it is untenable to say that Congress could have exercised a lesser power adequate to the end proposed. My brothers who are concurring in the result seem to find some comfort in that, for the present they void an Act of Congress only as to capital cases. I find no distinction in the Constitution between capital and other cases.

Court-Martial Jurisdiction Of Civilian Dependents

Court-Martial Jurisdiction Of Civilian Dependents Washington and Lee Law Review Volume 15 Issue 1 Article 6 Spring 3-1-1958 Court-Martial Jurisdiction Of Civilian Dependents Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr

More information

Constitutional Law - Court-Martial Jurisdiction Over Civilian Military Defendents in Foreign Countries

Constitutional Law - Court-Martial Jurisdiction Over Civilian Military Defendents in Foreign Countries Louisiana Law Review Volume 19 Number 1 Legislative Symposium: The 1958 Regular Session December 1958 Constitutional Law - Court-Martial Jurisdiction Over Civilian Military Defendents in Foreign Countries

More information

2012 The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History Excerpts from Ex Parte Quirin (underlining added for emphasis).

2012 The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History   Excerpts from Ex Parte Quirin (underlining added for emphasis). Excerpts from Ex Parte Quirin (underlining added for emphasis). In these causes motions for leave to file petitions for habeas corpus were presented to the United States District Court for the District

More information

AN OVERVIEW OF CANADA S MILITARY JUSTICE SYSTEM

AN OVERVIEW OF CANADA S MILITARY JUSTICE SYSTEM AN OVERVIEW OF CANADA S MILITARY JUSTICE SYSTEM I. WHY CANADA HAS A SEPARATE MILITARY JUSTICE SYSTEM 1. Canada s military justice system is a unique, self-contained system that is an integral part of the

More information

United States Court of Appeals

United States Court of Appeals United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued February 16, 2007 Decided April 6, 2007 No. 06-5324 MOHAMMAD MUNAF AND MAISOON MOHAMMED, AS NEXT FRIEND OF MOHAMMAD MUNAF, APPELLANTS

More information

by Jon M. Van Dyke Professor of Law William S. Richardson school of Law University of Hawaii at Manoa

by Jon M. Van Dyke Professor of Law William S. Richardson school of Law University of Hawaii at Manoa I 1 f Duncan v. Kahanamoku, 327 u.s. 304 (1946) by Jon M. Van Dyke Professor of Law William S. Richardson school of Law University of Hawaii at Manoa The U.s. Supreme court's decision in Duncan v. Kahanamoku

More information

Military Jurisdiction To Try Civilians During Peacetime

Military Jurisdiction To Try Civilians During Peacetime Washington and Lee Law Review Volume 17 Issue 2 Article 13 Fall 3-1-1960 Military Jurisdiction To Try Civilians During Peacetime Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr

More information

In the Supreme Court of the United States

In the Supreme Court of the United States No. 06-691 In the Supreme Court of the United States UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EX REL. MICHAEL G. NEW, PETITIONER v. ROBERT M. GATES, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, ET AL. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

More information

CONSTITUTION of the COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

CONSTITUTION of the COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA CONSTITUTION of the COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Article Preamble I. Declaration of Rights II. The Legislature III. Legislation IV. The Executive V. The Judiciary Schedule to Judiciary Article VI. Public

More information

CHAPTER 1 BASIC RULES AND PRINCIPLES

CHAPTER 1 BASIC RULES AND PRINCIPLES CHAPTER 1 BASIC RULES AND PRINCIPLES Section I. GENERAL 1. Purpose and Scope The purpose of this Manual is to provide authoritative guidance to military personnel on the customary and treaty law applicable

More information

IN A GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, U.S. ARMY TRIAL JUDICIARY FORT BRAGG, NORTH CAROLINA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) I.

IN A GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, U.S. ARMY TRIAL JUDICIARY FORT BRAGG, NORTH CAROLINA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) I. IN A GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, U.S. ARMY TRIAL JUDICIARY FORT BRAGG, NORTH CAROLINA UNITED STATES v. BERGDAHL, ROBERT BOWDRIE (BOWE SGT, U.S. Army HHC, Special Troops Battalion

More information

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES (Bench Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2007 1 NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes

More information

acquittal: Judgment that a criminal defendant has not been proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

acquittal: Judgment that a criminal defendant has not been proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. GlosaryofLegalTerms acquittal: Judgment that a criminal defendant has not been proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. affidavit: A written statement of facts confirmed by the oath of the party making

More information

THE JOINT RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE FOR COURTS OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

THE JOINT RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE FOR COURTS OF CRIMINAL APPEALS THE JOINT RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE FOR COURTS OF CRIMINAL APPEALS Effective 1 January 2019 Table of Contents I. General... 1 Rule 1. Courts of Criminal Appeals... 1 Rule 2. Scope of Rules; Title...

More information

Discussion. Discussion

Discussion. Discussion convening authority may deny a request for such an extension. (2) Summary courts-martial. After a summary court-martial, the accused may submit matters under this rule within 7 days after the sentence

More information

Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendment Rights

Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendment Rights You do not need your computers today. Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendment Rights How have the Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments' rights of the accused been incorporated as a right of all American citizens?

More information

Supreme Law of the Land. Abraham Lincoln is one of the most celebrated Presidents in American history. At a time

Supreme Law of the Land. Abraham Lincoln is one of the most celebrated Presidents in American history. At a time Christine Pattison MC 373B Final Paper Supreme Law of the Land Abraham Lincoln is one of the most celebrated Presidents in American history. At a time where the country was threating to tear itself apart,

More information

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Present: Judges Elder, Petty and Alston Argued at Salem, Virginia DERICK ANTOINE JOHNSON OPINION BY v. Record No. 2919-08-3 JUDGE ROSSIE D. ALSTON, JR. MAY 18, 2010 COMMONWEALTH

More information

No. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ) ) ) ) ) Proceedings below: In re OMAR KHADR, ) ) United States of America v. Omar Khadr Applicant ) )

No. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ) ) ) ) ) Proceedings below: In re OMAR KHADR, ) ) United States of America v. Omar Khadr Applicant ) ) No. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Proceedings below: In re OMAR KHADR, United States of America v. Omar Khadr Applicant Military Commissions Guantanamo Bay, Cuba EMERGENCY APPLICATION FOR STAY

More information

Decided: February 22, S15G1197. THE STATE v. KELLEY. We granted certiorari in this criminal case to address whether, absent the

Decided: February 22, S15G1197. THE STATE v. KELLEY. We granted certiorari in this criminal case to address whether, absent the In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: February 22, 2016 S15G1197. THE STATE v. KELLEY. HUNSTEIN, Justice. We granted certiorari in this criminal case to address whether, absent the consent of the State,

More information

In this article we are going to provide a brief look at the ten amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights.

In this article we are going to provide a brief look at the ten amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights Introduction The Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments to the Constitution. It establishes the basic civil liberties that the federal government cannot violate. When the Constitution

More information

SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA Rel: 08/29/2014 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate

More information

HPISD CURRICULUM (SOCIAL STUDIES, GOVERNMENT) EST. NUMBER OF DAYS:10 DAYS

HPISD CURRICULUM (SOCIAL STUDIES, GOVERNMENT) EST. NUMBER OF DAYS:10 DAYS HPISD CURRICULUM (SOCIAL STUDIES, GOVERNMENT) EST. NUMBER OF DAYS:10 DAYS UNIT NAME Unit Overview UNIT 4: JUDICIAL BRANCH, CIVIL LIBERTIES AND CIVIL RIGHTS A: JUDICIAL BRANCH B: CIVIL LIBERTIES FIRST AMENDMENT

More information

Lerche: Boumediene v. Bush. Boumediene v. Bush. Justin Lerche, Lynchburg College

Lerche: Boumediene v. Bush. Boumediene v. Bush. Justin Lerche, Lynchburg College Boumediene v. Bush Justin Lerche, Lynchburg College (Editor s notes: This paper by Justin Lerche is the winner of the LCSR Program Director s Award for the best paper dealing with a social problem in the

More information

UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS CORRECTED COPY UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS Before the Court Sitting En Banc 1 UNITED STATES, Appellee v. Sergeant ERIC F. KELLY United States Army, Appellant ARMY 20150725 Headquarters,

More information

Commonwealth Of Kentucky. Court of Appeals

Commonwealth Of Kentucky. Court of Appeals RENDERED: DECEMBER 17, 2004; 2:00 p.m. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth Of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2003-CA-002682-MR YORIG R. REYES APPELLANT APPEAL FROM FRANKLIN CIRCUIT COURT V. HONORABLE WILLIAM

More information

KNOW YOUR CONSTITUTION EXAM. 1. The legislative powers of the Federal Government are vested in the:

KNOW YOUR CONSTITUTION EXAM. 1. The legislative powers of the Federal Government are vested in the: 2014-2015 KNOW YOUR CONSTITUTION EXAM 1. The legislative powers of the Federal Government are vested in the: a. Congress b. President c. Supreme Court 2. What is the minimum age a person must be to serve

More information

RASUL V. BUSH, 124 S. CT (2004)

RASUL V. BUSH, 124 S. CT (2004) Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice Volume 11 Issue 1 Article 12 Winter 1-1-2005 RASUL V. BUSH, 124 S. CT. 2686 (2004) Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/crsj

More information

HANDBOOK FOR TRIAL JURORS SERVING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS

HANDBOOK FOR TRIAL JURORS SERVING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS HANDBOOK FOR TRIAL JURORS SERVING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS Prepared for the use of trial jurors serving in the United States district courts under the supervision of the Judicial Conference

More information

Constitution of the United States. Article. I.

Constitution of the United States. Article. I. Constitution of the United States Article. I. Section. 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

More information

Bill of Rights. 1. Meet the Source (2:58) Interview with Whitman Ridgway (Professor, University of Maryland, College Park)

Bill of Rights. 1. Meet the Source (2:58) Interview with Whitman Ridgway (Professor, University of Maryland, College Park) Interview with Whitman Ridgway (Professor, University of Maryland, College Park) Bill of Rights 1. Meet the Source (2:58) Well, the Bill of Rights, in my opinion, is a very remarkable document because

More information

Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States No. 10-1320 In The Supreme Court of the United States ALEX BLUEFORD, Petitioner, v. STATE OF ARKANSAS, Respondent. On Writ of Certiorari to the Arkansas Supreme Court BRIEF OF CONSTITUTIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE HOWARD C. BANKSTON, ) FOR

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE HOWARD C. BANKSTON, ) FOR IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE FILED September 25, 1995 HOWARD C. BANKSTON, ) FOR Cecil PUBLICATION Crowson, Jr. Appellate Court Clerk ) Appellee, ) Filed: September 25, 1995 ) v. ) HAMILTON

More information

F I L E D September 16, 2011

F I L E D September 16, 2011 Case: 11-50447 Document: 0051160478 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/16/011 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D September 16, 011 In

More information

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Cite as: 535 U. S. (2002) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of

More information

Ohio Bill of Rights. 02 Right to alter, reform, or abolish government, and repeal special privileges (1851)

Ohio Bill of Rights. 02 Right to alter, reform, or abolish government, and repeal special privileges (1851) Ohio Constitution Preamble We, the people of the State of Ohio, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and promote our common welfare, do establish this Constitution. Bill of

More information

CRIMINAL LAW JURISDICTION, PROCEDURE, AND THE COURTS. February 2017

CRIMINAL LAW JURISDICTION, PROCEDURE, AND THE COURTS. February 2017 CRIMINAL LAW JURISDICTION, PROCEDURE, AND THE COURTS February 2017 Prepared for the Supreme Court of Nevada by Ben Graham Governmental Advisor to the Judiciary Administrative Office of the Courts 775-684-1719

More information

CHAPTER III. INITIATION OF CHARGES; APPREHENSION; PRETRIAL RESTRAINT; RELATED MATTERS

CHAPTER III. INITIATION OF CHARGES; APPREHENSION; PRETRIAL RESTRAINT; RELATED MATTERS CHAPTER III. INITIATION OF CHARGES; APPREHENSION; PRETRIAL RESTRAINT; RELATED MATTERS Rule 301. Report of offense (a) Who may report. Any person may report an offense subject to trial by court-martial.

More information

POWELL V. ALABAMA United States Supreme Court 287 U.S. 45; 53 S.Ct. 55; 77 L.Ed. 158 (1932)

POWELL V. ALABAMA United States Supreme Court 287 U.S. 45; 53 S.Ct. 55; 77 L.Ed. 158 (1932) POWELL V. ALABAMA United States Supreme Court 287 U.S. 45; 53 S.Ct. 55; 77 L.Ed. 158 (1932) In this classic case, the Supreme Court reviews the convictions of eight young African- American men who had

More information

We the People of the United States,

We the People of the United States, We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings

More information

Discharged Servicemen Not Constitutionally Amenable to Courts-Martial Jurisdiction

Discharged Servicemen Not Constitutionally Amenable to Courts-Martial Jurisdiction DePaul Law Review Volume 5 Issue 1 Fall-Winter 1955 Article 10 Discharged Servicemen Not Constitutionally Amenable to Courts-Martial Jurisdiction DePaul College of Law Follow this and additional works

More information

Canadian soldiers are entitled to the rights and freedoms they fight to uphold.

Canadian soldiers are entitled to the rights and freedoms they fight to uphold. Canadian soldiers are entitled to the rights and freedoms they fight to uphold. This report is a critical analysis Bill C-41, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED VIRON PAUL, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D15-866

More information

State v. Camper, September Term 2008, No. 82

State v. Camper, September Term 2008, No. 82 State v. Camper, September Term 2008, No. 82 CRIMINAL LAW - MARYLAND RULE 4-215 - The harmless error doctrine does not apply to violations of Maryland Rule 4-215(a)(3). Consequently, a trial court s failure

More information

A Guide to the Bill of Rights

A Guide to the Bill of Rights A Guide to the Bill of Rights First Amendment Rights James Madison combined five basic freedoms into the First Amendment. These are the freedoms of religion, speech, the press, and assembly and the right

More information

First Amendment. Original language:

First Amendment. Original language: First Amendment Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people

More information

Mapp v. ohio (1961) rights of the accused. directions

Mapp v. ohio (1961) rights of the accused. directions Mapp v. ohio (1961) directions Read the Case Background and the Key Question. Then analyze Documents A-J. Finally, answer the Key Question in a well-organized essay that incorporates your interpretations

More information

State Courtroom Doors Closed to Evidence Obtained by Unreasonable Searches and Seizures

State Courtroom Doors Closed to Evidence Obtained by Unreasonable Searches and Seizures University of Miami Law School Institutional Repository University of Miami Law Review 10-1-1961 State Courtroom Doors Closed to Evidence Obtained by Unreasonable Searches and Seizures Carey A. Randall

More information

International trends in military justice

International trends in military justice International trends in military justice Presentation by Arne Willy Dahl 1 at the SJA/LOS Conference in Garmisch January 2008. Friends and colleagues, This presentation is based on the work of the International

More information

5. SUPREME COURT HAS BOTH ORIGINAL AND APPELLATE JURISDICTION

5. SUPREME COURT HAS BOTH ORIGINAL AND APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Liberties and Civil Rights Chapters 18-19-20-21 Chapter 18: Federal Court System 1. Section 1 National Judiciary 1. Supreme Court highest court in the land 2. Inferior (lower) courts: i. District

More information

Terrill: World Criminal Justice Systems, 8th Edition

Terrill: World Criminal Justice Systems, 8th Edition Terrill: World Criminal Justice Systems, 8th Edition Chapter 2 Multiple Choice 1. The French Constitution contains a Bill of Rights. 2. The president of France is limited to two consecutive terms in office.

More information

*Zarnoch, Graeff, Friedman,

*Zarnoch, Graeff, Friedman, UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 169 September Term, 2014 (ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION) DARRYL NICHOLS v. STATE OF MARYLAND *Zarnoch, Graeff, Friedman, JJ. Opinion by Friedman,

More information

An Introduction. to the. Federal Public Defender s Office. for the Districts of. South Dakota and North Dakota

An Introduction. to the. Federal Public Defender s Office. for the Districts of. South Dakota and North Dakota An Introduction to the Federal Public Defender s Office for the Districts of South Dakota and North Dakota Federal Public Defender's Office for the Districts of South Dakota and North Dakota Table of Contents

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT COOKEVILLE May 31, 2006 Session Heard at Boys State 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT COOKEVILLE May 31, 2006 Session Heard at Boys State 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT COOKEVILLE May 31, 2006 Session Heard at Boys State 1 WILLIAM L. SMITH V. VIRGINIA LEWIS, WARDEN, ET AL. Appeal by permission from the Court of Criminal Appeals Circuit

More information

CHAPTER 18:3 Supreme Court

CHAPTER 18:3 Supreme Court CHAPTER 18:3 Supreme Court Chapter 18:3 o We will examine the reasons why the Supreme Court is often called the higher court. o We will examine why judicial review is a key feature in the American System

More information

Constitutional Law -- Loss of Citizenship by Naturalized Citizen Residing Abroad

Constitutional Law -- Loss of Citizenship by Naturalized Citizen Residing Abroad University of Miami Law School Institutional Repository University of Miami Law Review 10-1-1964 Constitutional Law -- Loss of Citizenship by Naturalized Citizen Residing Abroad Melville Dunn Follow this

More information

CED/C/NLD/1. International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance

CED/C/NLD/1. International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance United Nations International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance Distr.: General 29 July 2013 Original: English CED/C/NLD/1 Committee on Enforced Disappearances Consideration

More information

TEACHING AMERICAN HISTORY PROJECT The Constitution, Article I Kyra Kasperson

TEACHING AMERICAN HISTORY PROJECT The Constitution, Article I Kyra Kasperson TEACHING AMERICAN HISTORY PROJECT The Constitution, Article I Kyra Kasperson Grade 7 Length of class period 42 minutes Inquiry What is the composition of the legislative branch under the Constitution and

More information

PROFESSIONAL TEACHING STANDARDS BOARD. United States Constitution Study Guide

PROFESSIONAL TEACHING STANDARDS BOARD. United States Constitution Study Guide PROFESSIONAL TEACHING STANDARDS BOARD United States Constitution Study Guide Section 21-7-304, Wyoming Statutes, 1969--"All persons hereafter applying for certificates authorizing them to become administrators

More information

Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority

Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority 469 U.S. 528 (1985) JUSTICE BLACKMUN delivered the opinion of the Court. We revisit in these cases an issue raised in 833 (1976). In that litigation,

More information

American Government Chapter 18 Notes The Federal Court System

American Government Chapter 18 Notes The Federal Court System American Government Chapter 18 Notes The Federal Court System Section 1 a. The National Judiciary B. Creation of a National Judiciary a. Framers of Constitution created a national judiciary b. A Dual Court

More information

14/10/ :27 a.m.

14/10/ :27 a.m. 1 of 46 OFFICERS 14/10/2013 11:27 a.m. ARMY ACT AN ACT TO PROVIDE THE RAISING AND MAINTENANCE OF AN ARMY AND FOR MATTERS CONNECTED THEREWITH. 1. This Act may be cited as the Army Act. PART I ORGANIZATION

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) V. ) CR. NO.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) V. ) CR. NO. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, V. CR. NO. 89-1234, Defendant. MOTION TO AMEND 28 U.S.C. 2255 MOTION Defendant, through undersigned counsel,

More information

The John Marshall Institutional Repository. The John Marshall Law School. Ralph Ruebner The John Marshall Law School,

The John Marshall Institutional Repository. The John Marshall Law School. Ralph Ruebner The John Marshall Law School, The John Marshall Law School The John Marshall Institutional Repository Court Documents and Proposed Legislation 4-1-2003 Written Testimony of Professor Ralph Ruebner on House Bill 1507: Jury Trial in

More information

Barkley Gardner v. Warden Lewisburg USP

Barkley Gardner v. Warden Lewisburg USP 2017 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1-4-2017 Barkley Gardner v. Warden Lewisburg USP Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2017

More information

No. 06SC188, Medina v. People Sentencing for Crime Different than Jury Conviction Violates Due Process and Sixth Amendment

No. 06SC188, Medina v. People Sentencing for Crime Different than Jury Conviction Violates Due Process and Sixth Amendment Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Court s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us/supct/supctcaseannctsindex.htm and are posted on the

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA DISCRETIONARY REVIEW OF DECISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA DISCRETIONARY REVIEW OF DECISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA RONALD COTE Petitioner vs. Case No.SC00-1327 STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent / DISCRETIONARY REVIEW OF DECISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT BRIEF

More information

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Cite as: 554 U. S. (2008) 1 Per Curiam SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Nos. 06 984 (08A98), 08 5573 (08A99), and 08 5574 (08A99) 06 984 (08A98) v. ON APPLICATION TO RECALL AND STAY MANDATE AND FOR STAY

More information

UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS Before FEBBO, SALUSSOLIA and WOLFE Appellate Military Judges Sergeant THOMAS M. ADAMS, Petitioner v. Colonel J. HARPER COOK, U.S. Army, Military Judge, Respondent

More information

In the Supreme Court of Virginia held at the Supreme Court Building in the City of Richmond on Thursday the 31st day of August, 2017.

In the Supreme Court of Virginia held at the Supreme Court Building in the City of Richmond on Thursday the 31st day of August, 2017. VIRGINIA: In the Supreme Court of Virginia held at the Supreme Court Building in the City of Richmond on Thursday the 31st day of August, 2017. Larry Lee Williams, Appellant, against Record No. 160257

More information

4.1a- The Powers of Congress

4.1a- The Powers of Congress 4.1a- The Powers of Congress In 1789, Federal Hall in New York City became the home of the first U.S. Congress. By 1790, Congress moved to the new capital of Philadelphia. At its creation in 1789, the

More information

Constitutional Law -- Sherman Act -- Cross- Elasticity in Determining Percentage of Market Control

Constitutional Law -- Sherman Act -- Cross- Elasticity in Determining Percentage of Market Control University of Miami Law School Institutional Repository University of Miami Law Review 5-1-1957 Constitutional Law -- Sherman Act -- Cross- Elasticity in Determining Percentage of Market Control Edgar

More information

Circuit Court, S. D. New York. April 7, 1885.

Circuit Court, S. D. New York. April 7, 1885. 882 UNITED STATES V. SEAMAN. Circuit Court, S. D. New York. April 7, 1885. 1. FEDERAL ELECTIONS REV. ST. 5511, 5514 FRAUDULENT ATTEMPT TO VOTE AT ELECTION FOR REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS INDICTMENT. An

More information

Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States No. 12-1038 In The Supreme Court of the United States UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. Petitioner, JOHN DENNIS APEL, Respondent. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

More information

Constitutional Law, Freedom of Speech, Lack of Scienter in City Ordinance Against Obscenity Violates First Amendment

Constitutional Law, Freedom of Speech, Lack of Scienter in City Ordinance Against Obscenity Violates First Amendment William & Mary Law Review Volume 2 Issue 2 Article 13 Constitutional Law, Freedom of Speech, Lack of Scienter in City Ordinance Against Obscenity Violates First Amendment Douglas A. Boeckmann Repository

More information

Case 3:09-cr RBL Document 34 Filed 10/20/10 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

Case 3:09-cr RBL Document 34 Filed 10/20/10 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA Case :0-cr-0-RBL Document Filed 0/0/0 Page of HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 0 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT M. REVELES,

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2015

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2015 CLAIM No. 292 of 2014 BETWEEN: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2015 IN THE MATTER OF Section 113 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, Chapter 91 of the Laws of Belize AND IN THE MATTER OF an Application

More information

Explanatory Report to the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism

Explanatory Report to the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism Explanatory Report to the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism Strasbourg, 27.I.1977 European Treaty Series - No. 90 Introduction I. The European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism,

More information

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Cite as: 534 U. S. (2001) 1 SCALIA, J., concurring SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 00 860 CORRECTIONAL SERVICES CORPORATION, PETITIONER v. JOHN E. MALESKO ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES

More information

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 07a0585n.06 Filed: August 14, Case No

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 07a0585n.06 Filed: August 14, Case No NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 07a0585n.06 Filed: August 14, 2007 Case No. 03-5681 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT RONNIE LEE BOWLING, Petitioner-Appellant, v.

More information

Natural Resources Journal

Natural Resources Journal Natural Resources Journal 6 Nat Resources J. 2 (Spring 1966) Spring 1966 Criminal Procedure Habitual Offenders Collateral Attack on Prior Foreign Convictions In a Recidivist Proceeding Herbert M. Campbell

More information

Possibility Of Parole For A Conviction Of Conspiracy To Commit First Degree Murder]

Possibility Of Parole For A Conviction Of Conspiracy To Commit First Degree Murder] No. 109, September Term, 1999 Rondell Erodrick Johnson v. State of Maryland [Whether Maryland Law Authorizes The Imposition Of A Sentence Of Life Imprisonment Without The Possibility Of Parole For A Conviction

More information

The Balancing of Self-Preservation against Political Freedom

The Balancing of Self-Preservation against Political Freedom California Law Review Volume 49 Issue 1 Article 2 March 1961 The Balancing of Self-Preservation against Political Freedom Alexander Meiklejohn Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/californialawreview

More information

1 Karl Eric Gratzer, who was convicted of deliberate homicide in 1982 and who is

1 Karl Eric Gratzer, who was convicted of deliberate homicide in 1982 and who is IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. 05-075 2006 MT 282 KARL ERIC GRATZER, ) ) Petitioner, ) O P I N I O N v. ) and ) O R D E R MIKE MAHONEY, ) ) Respondent. ) 1 Karl Eric Gratzer, who was

More information

Class #10: The Extraterritorial Fourth Amendment. Professor Emily Berman Thursday, September 25, 2014

Class #10: The Extraterritorial Fourth Amendment. Professor Emily Berman Thursday, September 25, 2014 Class #10: The Extraterritorial Fourth Amendment Professor Emily Berman Thursday, September 25, 2014 Thursday, September 25, 2014 Wrap Up Third Party Doctrine Discussion Smith v. Maryland Section 215 The

More information

Neiman v. Military Governor of the Occupied Area of Jerusalem

Neiman v. Military Governor of the Occupied Area of Jerusalem 1 H.C.J 1/48 HERMAN NEIMAN v. 1) THE MILITARY GOVERNOR OF THE OCCUPIED AREA OF JERUSALEM 2) THE CHIEF MILITARY PROSECUTOR In the Supreme Court sitting as the High Court of Justice [September 29, 1948]

More information

1 381 F.2d 870 (1967). RECENT CASES. convicted of grand larceny and sentenced to the Ohio Reformatory for one to seven years.

1 381 F.2d 870 (1967). RECENT CASES. convicted of grand larceny and sentenced to the Ohio Reformatory for one to seven years. CRIMINAL LAW-APPLICATION OF OHIO POST- CONVICTION PROCEDURE (Ohio Rev. Code 2953.21 et seq.) -EFFECT OF PRIOR JUDGMENT ON. Coley v. Alvis, 381 F.2d 870 (1967) In the per curiam decision of Coley v. Alvis'

More information

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Cite as: 529 U. S. (2000) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of

More information

CONTROLLING LEGAL PRINCIPLES Free Exercise Clause Decision The Contemplation of Justice McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 4 Wheat.

CONTROLLING LEGAL PRINCIPLES Free Exercise Clause Decision The Contemplation of Justice McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 4 Wheat. CONTROLLING LEGAL PRINCIPLES Free Exercise Clause Decision The Contemplation of Justice McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 4 Wheat. 316 316 (1819) The Government of the Union, though limited in its powers,

More information

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Cite as: 580 U. S. (2017) 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES DAMION ST. PATRICK BASTON v. UNITED STATES ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

More information

The Bill of Rights. QuickTime and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor are needed to see this picture.

The Bill of Rights. QuickTime and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor are needed to see this picture. The Bill of Rights Introduction The Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791 It includes the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution It protects American s basic freedoms against the power of the Federal Government

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 107,022. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, MICHAEL J. MITCHELL, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 107,022. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, MICHAEL J. MITCHELL, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 107,022 STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. MICHAEL J. MITCHELL, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. K.S.A. 60-1507 provides the exclusive statutory remedy to

More information

Subject: Pre-Charge Screening APPLICATION OF POLICY INTRODUCTION

Subject: Pre-Charge Screening APPLICATION OF POLICY INTRODUCTION Director of Military Prosecutions National Defence Headquarters Major-General George R. Pearkes Building 101 Colonel By Drive Ottawa, ON K1A 0K2 DMP Policy Directive Directive #: 002/99 Date: 1 March 2000

More information

Name Class Period CIVIL LIBERTIES: FIRST AMENDMENT FREEDOMS. Describe the difference between civil liberties and civil rights.

Name Class Period CIVIL LIBERTIES: FIRST AMENDMENT FREEDOMS. Describe the difference between civil liberties and civil rights. Name Class Period UNIT 2 CHAPTER 19 MAIN IDEA PACKET: Civil Liberties & Civil Rights AMERICAN GOVERNMENT CHAPTERS 19, 20 & 21 CIVIL LIBERTIES: FIRST AMENDMENT FREEDOMS Chapter 19 Section 1: The Unalienable

More information

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT,

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT, [Cite as State v. Brown, 99 Ohio St.3d 323, 2003-Ohio-3931.] THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT, v. BROWN, APPELLEE. [Cite as State v. Brown, 99 Ohio St.3d 323, 2003-Ohio-3931.] Criminal law R.C. 2935.26 Issuance

More information

This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2016).

This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2016). This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2016). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A17-0169 Randy Lee Morrow, petitioner, Appellant,

More information

No. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES In re OMAR KHADR, Petitioner Proceedings below: United States of America v. Omar Khadr Military Commissions Guantanamo Bay, Cuba EMERGENCY PETITION FOR WRIT

More information

The Executive Order Process

The Executive Order Process The Executive Order Process The Return of the Fingerpainter 1. Authority to issue the MCM. 2. Contents of the MCM 3. Pt. IV of the MCM 4. Level of judicial deference to Pt. IV materials 5. (Time permitting)

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 110,702. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, JOSHUA HAROLD WATKINS, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 110,702. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, JOSHUA HAROLD WATKINS, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 110,702 STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. JOSHUA HAROLD WATKINS, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. The legislature intended the Kansas Offender Registration

More information

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL DIVISION

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL DIVISION IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL DIVISION COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : : vs. : NO. 216 CR 2010 : 592 CR 2010 JOSEPH WOODHULL OLIVER, JR., : Defendant : Criminal Law

More information